My austerity policy would cap maximum incomes at $1 million

Since some are so dedicated to an austerity policy, I suggest we give them one that will actually work for all instead of just for the wealthy.

Austerity ought to start at the top rather than at the bottom.

Nobody actually needs a million dollars to get by for a year. Thus, there ought to be a maximum cap of $1 million of total income in any one year (by any and all means in which it is made). Any total income over a million should be limited to only one deduction of $1 million.

No clever tax shelters or dodges of any kind to keep more. Anything over $1 million should be the tax owed to the U.S. government. Out of that million dollars left to the taxpayer may be taken additional taxes such as state, county and other taxing entities.

This should leave the wealthy more than enough to get by for a year, provided they adopt austerity measures.

This will provide government with yearly taxes to repair or replace our crumbling infrastructures (even increase them some), while also providing jobs across the nation for our people, thus boosting their incomes and the economy.

It can also provide money to construct a nationwide shelter system for the poor, which shall always be with us.

Such a system of shelters done properly is the most cost-effective means of providing for them and will enable the poor to organize politically to represent their own interests to Congress, a condition now lacking because poverty denies the ability to unite politically. Such shelters would also provide numerous other great benefits for our nation, much too numerous to lay out here.

To list just a few through the domino effect, we could reduce the cost of the judicial system, penal system, police forces, medical care, food stamps, insurance, education (higher and lower), drug addiction, suicides, employment, unemployment, crime (violent and nonviolent), exorbitant costs of homes and rental apartments, and numerous types of just plain fraud.

With a little imagination I am sure we could think of many other ways that such shelters could better serve our society overall. This is why the wealthy do not ever want to see any such shelter systems in the United States. It would cut into their profits.

So, what if the greedy wealthy decide to take their marbles and quit the game? Their departure will just open up the game to other players less greedy and more willing to share the wealth, which will be better all around for all of us than working for the greedy who just want to suck us dry for all they can get and then throw us away. Those kinds of people our society really does not need. It is better we throw them away first.

If the wealthy decide they do not like my austerity system, they should be free to surrender their citizenship and move to whatever country will accept such greed-oriented persons.

If they do surrender citizenship, they should be required to pay a “departure tax” equal to all of their wealth, except for just $1 million. It will be more difficult to find another country to accept them with only a measly million dollars to their name.

Adjustment to such an austerity policy will, of course, take some time as the greedy wealthy learn to live without so much wealth and possibly even become good citizens rather than just greedy citizens willing to sell the United States down the drain for money.

With enough of such austerity we may even eventually start to pay off some of the United States debt, provided we quit allowing the U.S. to be dragged into wars of others around the world.

We have better things to do with our money and our people than to waste them on such needless foreign wars.